2013 (1) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ents Rep by: Mr. Pradeep S Jetly & Ms. Suchitra Kamble JUDGEMENT 1. Whether the CESTAT was justified in directing the appellant to deposit Rs.85,00,000/- for entertaining the appeal against the order-in-original dated 10th December 2009 is the question raised in this appeal. 2. The appeal is admitted on the above substantial question of law and is taken up for final hearing by consent of both t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant that the services rendered by the appellant - assessee would be covered under the heading "Ship Management Services" from 1st May 2006 and not under heading 'Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency's Services' prior to 1st May 2006. The question, therefore, to be considered in the appeal filed before the Tribunal is whether the services rendered by the appellant for the period prior to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s, in view of the fact that there being inconsistency in the stand of the Revenue in relation to the head under which the service tax was leviable, prior to 1st May 2006, in our opinion, it would be just and proper in the facts of the present case to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23rd February 2012 passed by the CESTAT is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X